Nobody in this thread accused LLM of writing the OP. Instead, they are saying that it is dumb and easy in the way a lot of LLM writing is, and that LLMs wouldn't have any problem writing it. This author is being disliked in the traditional way, but with a LLM-assisted proof that actually shows that LLMs can write this crap, and write it well.

The real proposal should be that slate dot com type "Is Food Really Good For You?" or "Hands Are A Completely Unnecessary Part Of The Arm" article authors should be replaced by LLM.

I like the proliferation of LLM slop, because it involuntarily reveals the emptiness of an enormous proportion of actual human writing. You can't help but see it, even if you don't want to. You end up forced to talk about the author's resume in defense.

Are you attempting to claim that my identification of AI slop is incorrect?

If so, you're almost certainly wrong.

In my experience, LLMs can be pretty great at coding and math.

When it comes to writing ordinary natural language, the constraints are less rigorous, and LLM output tends to focus on rhetoric, where the goal is to fool people into accepting a conclusion rather than actually supporting the conclusion from a logical perspective.

It's good for people who want to take shortcuts to do their work with minimal effort, good for employers who are waiting for it to mature enough to be able to eliminate most employees, and good for the people selling it. Outside of those bubbles, it's seen as garbage. None of these use cases increases quality or makes the world better.